9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to March 2006. During this period the respondent availed service tax credit amounting to Rs. 3,55,602/- on services received from certain service provider on the basis of documents called debit note cum bills. The department was of the view that these documents are not the valid documents for availing Cenvat credit, as prescribed under Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On this basis, after issue of show cause notice, the Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 17-2-09 confirmed the Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 3,55,602/- under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 alongwith interest under Section 11AB. However, no penalty was imposed under Rule 15. On appeal to Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner, that the provisions of Rule 9(1) cannot be treated as mere procedure, that when Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules prescribes certain documents on the basis of which Cenvat credit that can be taken, the Cenvat credit cannot be allowed on the basis of any other documents and that in view of this, the impugned order permitting Cenvat credit on the basis of documents called debit notes cum bills is not correct. Learned Departmental Representative also cited the judgments of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of S.K. Foils Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi-III reported in 2009 (239) E.L.T. 395 (P & H) and the judgment of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Executive Engineer (Civil), MPEB v. Asstt. Commr., C. Ex., Ujjain repo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t credit, and that same view has been taken by this Tribunal in the case of Pharmalab Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 2009 (16) S.T.R. 94 (Tri. - Ahmd.) = 2009 (242) E.L.T. 467 (Tri. - Ahmd.). Shri Khandelwal also mentions that since the period of demand is from January 2005 to March 2006 and show cause notice has been issued on 17-4-07 and since there is no evidence of wilful suppression or fact of contraventions of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 with intent to evade the payment of duty, the extended period is not available to the department and, hence, the bulk of Cenvat credit demand is time barred. He also pointed out that the Assistant Commissioner in the order-in-original has not imposed any pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as invoices and it would not be correct to deny the Cenvat credit to the respondent just because these documents invoice are mentioned as debit notes cum bills. I find that same view has been expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Karur KCP Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Trichy (supra) and Pharmalab Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad (supra). 5. The learned Departmental Representative has cited the judgment of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. AVIS Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held that when as per the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the credit could be taken only on the basis of duplicate copy of invoice or in the case of loss of duplicate copy in transit on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
